Re: rule cycle and reduce/reduce conflict

[John P. Hartmann]

You'll have to learn to decipher the grammar output file.  Perhaps the
problem is the rule

num_expr : bool_expr

You are welcome to send me the output file as a mail attachment off his
list.


On 11/19/2013 11:40 AM, Florent Teichteil wrote:
>> ! is a prefix operator; = is infix.
> 
> Sorry, but I read bison's documentation regarding infix operators and
> precedence levels, and I still don't understand your short explanation.
> Here is another simple grammar with only infix operators that has conflicts:
> 
> %left '&'
> %left '='
> %left '+'
> 
> %%
> 
> start : bool_expr;
> 
> bool_expr : bool_expr '&' bool_expr
>           | num_expr '=' num_expr
>           | 'b'
>           ;
> 
> num_expr : bool_expr
>          | num_expr '+' num_expr
>          | 'n'
>          ;
> 
> %%
> 
> All operators have defined precedence levels, so why is it ambiguous?
> 
> Thanks,
> Florent
>